The Wild Bunch HD DVD review

I recently purchased the Toshiba HDXA2 player and am now collecting and screening
HD DVD films. Among my first purchases was "The Wild Bunch" in HD DVD.

Of course I have the previous version in standard DVD (anamorphic enhanced).
How dramatic is the difference? Probably not as much as you might imagine if you
have a DVD player that upscales the image. However, the HD version is sharper and
finer grain. As I suspected, the opticals (dissolves, freeze frames, titles) are grainier
than in the standard definition version. Digital exagerates the attributes and liabilities
of the negative. When it's sharp it's ultra sharp and when it's grainy it's noticeably
grainy. A film print tends to blend the differences together whereas digital imagery
calls attention to them.


I would say the projected image on a HD DLP simulates the original Technicolor 35mm
prints accurately, if not improves on the shadow detail. The cinematography is different
to say the least. In general the skies were exposed leaving the fleshtones dark in
some sequences. The HD DVD enables you to see more facial details than in the
original Technicolor prints. It certainly shows the wrinkles, creases and weatherworn
skin of the stars. I don't think the director would've objected. The narrative is about
aging and living beyond your time.


I've never bought Pekinpah's rhetoric about showing graphic violence to
deter violence. The extreme bloodletting in this film is so stylish and extreme,
it's fantasized. Most people think that the director was copying Arthur
Penn's slow motion deaths from "Bonnie and Clyde" but Pekinpah filmed
similar shots in "Major Dundee" back in 1965 and the producer cut them out prior
to release. His blood squibs are very exagerated since unless a bullet hits an
arttery, it won't squirt out the way it does for every wound here. It also appears
that he took sadistic glee in extending a person's agony as they twist and fall
in slow motion before dying. There was a lot of concern about movie violence in
the late sixties ane early seventies with this movie sited as a bad example.
However, that debate usually focussed on the possibility of it being imitated by
impressionable viewers. The gore is so exagerated in this film, I don't believe it's the kind that could be imitated like the violence in "Death Wish" and "Taxi Driver", which inspired real life copycats.



In any event, Pekinpah does accomplishment the difficult task of making dangerous
and ruthless outlaws sympathetic and even likeable although that's primarily because
the so called 'lawmen' are so repellant with the exception of Robert Ryan who is morally
confused over his forced participation as a bounty hunter. It's also quirky to have the
craziest and most revolting character played by Edmund O'Brien the sole survivor of
the bunch.

The movie had a very strange release pattern. It's one of the few features that Pekinpah
had some creative control over but even that was limited. Pekinpah, for all of his unorthodox
attitudes and production techniques, was still a 'work for hire' in 1969. He didn't produce
his own movies (unlike Hitchcock) so his creative control remained within the discretion of the
producer he was working for. He probably didn't have the discipline to produce himself and
his bizarre behavior on and off set didn't inspire a studio to allow him. However, within the
confines of a 'work for hire' job, he was able to put his very off the wall approach to cinema
into play. Apparently Warner Brothers was very nervous about the finished product and went
through it on a frame by frame basis removing as many blood squibs as they could. However,
the way it was filmed and edited meant that the final cut was still the goriest mainstream film
as of 1969 which created a great deal of controversy. Without Pekinpah's approval (not that
they needed it), about 10 minutes of flashback scenes (not gore) was cut after it's initial
release. The press screened the complete version, then the 35mm Technicolor release prints
were physically cut to remove specific scenes to reduce the running time from 145 minutes
to 135 minutes. To make it more confusing, the rare 70mm blow up print (in six track magnetic
stereo) remained intact as did some 35mm Technicolor copies still circulating. Depending on where you
saw the film, you either screened the complete version or the cut version. The same applied
to the revival theaters of the seventies where I first saw the film. The Elgin played the cut
version whereas Cinema Village played the complete version.


In the early nineties, Warner Brothers decided to officially re-release the complete 145 minute
cut. For unknown reasons, they decided to submit it to the MPAA for a rating even though the
complete cut was already classified as "R". The MPAA looked at the exact same 145 minute
version and rated it "NC-17". As a result, WB decided not to re-issue it to mainstream theaters
even although some art houses and rep cinemas booked it. They later appealed the
classification and the MPAA re-rated it "R" since no new footage was incorporated and it had
already been given that rating back in 1969. Yet another tale of the 'Rating's Game'. The movie didn't
have to be 'restored' (despite the claims of WB), since the negative was never cut. Just the
release prints and not even all of them.

The Eurpoean version was always intact and even had an Intermission (rustic lettering for the
card) and Entre-Acte' which occured just before they raided the train. This has not been
included in the US discs although technically they were never part of the US release.

In conclusion, if you don't have a HD DVD player, don't rush out to purchase one just to
see the HD DVD disc. It is better than the standard DVD but not so dramatic as to warrant
an expensive new machine until the format wars play out.

If you have a wife or girlfriend, don't screen it for them. It's definately not a 'chick flick'.
Like most Pekinpah movies, whatever females there are in the movie are untrustworthy
oportunists or whores.